Dataset Information

Variable Ventilation Is Equally Effective as Conventional Pressure Control Ventilation for Optimizing Lung Function in a Rabbit Model of ARDS.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Introducing mathematically derived variability (MVV) into the otherwise monotonous conventional mechanical ventilation has been suggested to improve lung recruitment and gas exchange. Although the application of a ventilation pattern based on variations in physiological breathing (PVV) is beneficial for healthy lungs, its value in the presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has not been characterized. We therefore aimed at comparing conventional pressure-controlled ventilation with (PCS) or without regular sighs (PCV) to MVV and PVV at two levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in a model of severe ARDS.

Methods

Anesthetised rabbits (n = 54) were mechanically ventilated and severe ARDS (PaO₂/FiO₂ ≤ 150 mmHg) was induced by combining whole lung lavage, i.v. endotoxin and injurious ventilation. Rabbits were then randomly assigned to be ventilated with PVV, MVV, PCV, or PCS for 5 h while maintaining either 6 or 9 cmH₂O PEEP. Ventilation parameters, blood gas indices and respiratory mechanics (tissue damping, G, and elastance, H) were recorded hourly. Serum cytokine levels were assessed with ELISA and lung histology was analyzed.

Results

Although no progression of lung injury was observed after 5 h of ventilation at PEEP 6 cmH₂O with PVV and PCV, values for G (58.8 ± 71.1[half-width of 95% CI]% and 40.8 ± 39.0%, respectively), H (54.5 ± 57.2%, 50.7 ± 28.3%), partial pressure of carbon-dioxide (PaCO₂, 43.9 ± 23.8%, 46.2 ± 35.4%) and pH (-4.6 ± 3.3%, -4.6 ± 2.2%) worsened with PCS and MVV. Regardless of ventilation pattern, application of a higher PEEP improved lung function and precluded progression of lung injury and inflammation. Histology lung injury scores were elevated in all groups with no difference between groups at either PEEP level.

Conclusion

At moderate PEEP, variable ventilation based on a pre-recorded physiological breathing pattern protected against progression of lung injury equally to the conventional pressure-controlled mode, whereas mathematical variability or application of regular sighs caused worsening in lung mechanics. This outcome may be related to the excessive increases in peak inspiratory pressure with the latter ventilation modes. However, a greater benefit on respiratory mechanics and gas exchange could be obtained by elevating PEEP, compared to the ventilation mode in severe ARDS.

SUBMITTER: Fodor GH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6607923 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes.MethodProspective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH2O, peak pressure <30 cmH2O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min.ResultsForty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO2/ FiO2 ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH2O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001).ConclusionAmong critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation.

Project description:Emphysema is characterized by loss of lung tissue elasticity and destruction of structures supporting alveoli and capillaries. The impact of mechanical ventilation strategies on ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) in emphysema is poorly defined. New ventilator strategies should be developed to minimize VILI in emphysema. The present study was divided into two protocols: (1) characterization of an elastase-induced emphysema model in rats and identification of the time point of greatest cardiorespiratory impairment, defined as a high specific lung elastance associated with large right ventricular end-diastolic area; and (2) comparison between variable (VV) and conventional volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) on lung mechanics and morphometry, biological markers, and cardiac function at that time point. In the first protocol, Wistar rats (n = 62) received saline (SAL) or porcine pancreatic elastase (ELA) intratracheally once weekly for 4 weeks, respectively. Evaluations were performed 1, 3, 5, or 8 weeks after the last intratracheal instillation of saline or elastase. After identifying the time point of greatest cardiorespiratory impairment, an additional 32 Wistar rats were randomized into the SAL and ELA groups and then ventilated with VV or VCV (n = 8/group) [tidal volume (VT) = 6 mL/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) = 3 cmH2O, fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) = 0.4] for 2 h. VV was applied on a breath-to-breath basis as a sequence of randomly generated VT values (mean VT = 6 mL/kg), with a 30% coefficient of variation. Non-ventilated (NV) SAL and ELA animals were used for molecular biology analysis. The time point of greatest cardiorespiratory impairment, was observed 5 weeks after the last elastase instillation. At this time point, interleukin (IL)-6, cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant (CINC)-1, amphiregulin, angiopoietin (Ang)-2, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) mRNA levels were higher in ELA compared to SAL. In ELA animals, VV reduced respiratory system elastance, alveolar collapse, and hyperinflation compared to VCV, without significant differences in gas exchange, but increased right ventricular diastolic area. Interleukin-6 mRNA expression was higher in VCV and VV than NV, while surfactant protein-D was increased in VV compared to NV. In conclusion, VV improved lung function and morphology and reduced VILI, but impaired right cardiac function in this model of elastase induced-emphysema.

Project description:ObjectivesLow tidal volume (= tidal volume ≤ 6 mL/kg, predicted body weight) ventilation using volume control benefits patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Airway pressure release ventilation is an alternative to low tidal volume-volume control ventilation, but the release breaths generated are variable and can exceed tidal volume breaths of low tidal volume-volume control. We evaluate the application of a low tidal volume-compatible airway pressure release ventilation protocol that manages release volumes on both clinical and feasibility endpoints.DesignWe designed a prospective randomized trial in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We randomized patients to low tidal volume-volume control, low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation, and traditional airway pressure release ventilation with a planned enrollment of 246 patients. The study was stopped early because of low enrollment and inability to consistently achieve tidal volumes less than 6.5 mL/kg in the low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation arm. Although the primary clinical study endpoint was PaO2/FIO2 on study day 3, we highlight the feasibility outcomes related to tidal volumes in both arms.SettingFour Intermountain Healthcare tertiary ICUs.PatientsAdult ICU patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.InterventionsLow tidal volume-volume control, airway pressure release ventilation, and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation.Measurements and main resultsWe observed wide variability and higher tidal (release for airway pressure release ventilation) volumes in both airway pressure release ventilation (8.6 mL/kg; 95% CI, 7.8-9.6) and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (8.0; 95% CI, 7.3-8.9) than volume control (6.8; 95% CI, 6.2-7.5; p = 0.005) with no difference between airway pressure release ventilation and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (p = 0.58). Recognizing the limitations of small sample size, we observed no difference in 52 patients in day 3 PaO2/ FIO2 (p = 0.92). We also observed no significant difference between arms in sedation, vasoactive medications, or occurrence of pneumothorax.ConclusionsAirway pressure release ventilation resulted in release volumes often exceeding 12 mL/kg despite a protocol designed to target low tidal volume ventilation. Current airway pressure release ventilation protocols are unable to achieve consistent and reproducible delivery of low tidal volume ventilation goals. A large-scale efficacy trial of low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation is not feasible at this time in the absence of an explicit, generalizable, and reproducible low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation protocol.

Project description:Driving pressure (?Prs) across the respiratory system is suggested as the strongest predictor of hospital mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We wonder whether this result is related to the range of tidal volume (VT). Therefore, we investigated ?Prs in two trials in which strict lung-protective mechanical ventilation was applied in ARDS. Our working hypothesis was that ?Prs is a risk factor for mortality just like compliance (Crs) or plateau pressure (Pplat,rs) of the respiratory system.We performed secondary analysis of data from 787 ARDS patients enrolled in two independent randomized controlled trials evaluating distinct adjunctive techniques while they were ventilated as in the low VT arm of the ARDSnet trial. For this study, we used VT, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), Pplat,rs, Crs, ?Prs, and respiratory rate recorded 24 hours after randomization, and compared them between survivors and nonsurvivors at day 90. Patients were followed for 90 days after inclusion. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used for mortality at day 90. If colinearity between ?Prs, Crs, and Pplat,rs was verified, specific Cox models were used for each of them.Both trials enrolled 805 patients of whom 787 had day-1 data available, and 533 of these survived. In the univariate analysis, ?Prs averaged 13.7?±?3.7 and 12.8?±?3.7 cmH2O (P?=?0.002) in nonsurvivors and survivors, respectively. Colinearity between ?Prs, Crs and Pplat,rs, which was expected as these variables are mathematically coupled, was statistically significant. Hazard ratios from the Cox models for day-90 mortality were 1.05 (1.02-1.08) (P?=?0.005), 1.05 (1.01-1.08) (P?=?0.008) and 0.985 (0.972-0.985) (P?=?0.029) for ?Prs, Pplat,rs and Crs, respectively. PEEP and VT were not associated with death in any model.When ventilating patients with low VT, ?Prs is a risk factor for death in ARDS patients, as is Pplat,rs or Crs. As our data originated from trials from which most ARDS patients were excluded due to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, these findings must be validated in independent observational studies in patients ventilated with a lung protective strategy.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00299650 . Registered 6 March 2006 for the Acurasys trial. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00527813 . Registered 10 September 2007 for the Proseva trial.